Here's an interesting link:
Why Asians Are Good At Math, Finally, A Legit Theory...
I may be a nobody nowadays, but when I was in high-school I tried to do well. I didn't spend all day doing homework, but I passed my classes and got a
high gpa throughout (somewhere around 3.6-3.8). I procrastinated, but who doesn't? I also got teased a lot, so... Honestly, I had an asian friend in
high-school and he was really smart. But he was also an exchange student. Either way, I went on to a community college and the good grades continued.
(My IQ, btw, is average.)
(on that note, my asian friend back in HS did say that school in the US was easier. but i think he was emphasizing that it was looser and not as tight
as asian schooling, not necessarily dumber. although considering that we were going to school in a backwoods community, maybe a small
What's my point? Not sure. I just think that too many of us are using our gut and not being sensible. To really understand IF or why asians are better
at math and science, we need math and science. Maybe that's a telling dilemma, no? The gut is good at a lot of things, but it can still easily be
I'm not saying the link I give here resolves anything. I just found it on the net and thought I'd share it. If I end up not offering anything sensible
then my post is kind of mute, no?
Here's the book that's referenced in the link:
en.wikipedia.org - Outliers (book)...
In Outliers, Gladwell examines the factors that contribute to high levels of success. To support his thesis, he examines the causes of why the
majority of Canadian ice hockey players are born in the first few months of the calendar year, how Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates achieved his
extreme wealth, how The Beatles became one of the most successful musical acts in human history, how cultural differences play a large part in
perceived intelligence and rational decision making, and how two people with exceptional intelligence, Christopher Langan and J. Robert Oppenheimer,
end up with such vastly different fortunes. Throughout the publication, Gladwell repeatedly mentions the "10,000-Hour Rule", claiming that the key to
success in any field is, to a large extent, a matter of practicing a specific task for a total of around 10,000 hours.
(from the same wiki link about the Outliers book) This passage is from the reception section
Finding it ironic that Outliers provided suggestions on how to resolve cultural biases, the Sunday Times review by Kevin Jackson agreed that the book
itself suffered from an unbalanced focus on American subjects, predicting that this would lead to better sales in the United States than in the United
Kingdom. Jackson was disappointed in the book's lack of new ideas, noting that it merely expands on the concept that "you have to be born at the right
moment; at the right place; to the right family (posh usually helps); and then you have to work really, really hard. That's about it." He was also
skeptical towards Gladwell's arguments for the 10,000-Hour Rule by countering that The Beatles' success had more to do with "the youthful spirit of
the age, the vogue for guitar bands and a spark of collaborative chemistry". Regarding the book, Paul McCartney, former member of The Beatles,
said in an interview on August 6, 2010:
----- "I've read the book. I think there is a lot of truth in it [...] I mean there were an awful lot of bands that were out in Hamburg who put in
10,000 hours and didn't make it, so it's not a cast-iron theory. I think, however, when you look at a group who has been successful... I think you
always will find that amount of work in the background. But I don't think it's a rule that if you do that amount of work, you're going to be as
successful as the Beatles."
Speaking of the "10,000-Hour Rule", ever looked at a list of Kanji symbols? Gah, it's a minefield of scribbles. I'm thinking 10,000 hours ain't
enough. Each scribble is made up of radicals too.
Language is an interesting topic. Does our language really impact our math?
edit on 29-10-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason